advances in language and literary studiescomplications of translating the meanings of the holy...

Complications of Translating the Meanings of the Holy Qur’an at Word Level in the English Language in Relation to Frame Semantic Theory

Asjad Ahmed Saeed Balla1, Ahmed Gumaa Siddiek2*1Al-Aflaj-Prince Sattam University, KSA and Gadarif University, Sudan 2Al-Zaeem Al-Azhari University, Sudan and Shaqra University, KSACorresponding Author: Ahmed Gumaa Siddiek, E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The present study is an attempt to investigate the problems resulting from the lexical choice in the translation of the Holy Qur’an to emphasize the importance of the theory of “Frame Semantics” in the translation process. It has been conducted with the aim of measuring the difference in concept between the two languages Arabic and English. In order to find out this difference two words have been chosen from the Qur’an to see how the different English frames can affect the translation of the Holy Qur’an. In addition to that the paper aims to reveal the strategies used by translators to avoid such effect. We also intended to see which factors that can mostly affect the translation of the Qur’an: the linguistic background or the cultural knowledge. Four hypotheses were coined to deal with the difference in frame knowledge (conception) between Arabic and English. The analysis of the data showed that the linguistic background contributed more to the translators’ ability than the cultural knowledge. A rank ordering for the five translations performed in the present study resulted in that the first rank (completely appropriate) was assigned to Yusuf Ali’s translation and the second position was booked by Pickthall’s translation.

INTRODUCTION

The Context of the ProblemThe need for the interpretation and the translation of the mean-ings of the Qur’an was a natural result of the widespread of Islam all over the world. The translation of the Qur’an into En-glish in particular, is regarded important, as English has become a universal means of communication, as well a medium of in-structions in many educational environments. The need for the translation and interpretation of the Qur’an is not a recent need or a recent practice. It dated back to the early time of Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) when his companion asked about the meanings of some words and verses of the Holy Book.

The importance of translating the meanings of the Holy Qur’an comes from the fact that the Qur’an is the source of Islam that spread out all over the world and it is truly a divine book full of wisdom, teaching and great values. The need for understanding the Qur’an and Islam at the present time re-sulted from the conflict between Islamic Faith and other reli-gions. There are two views of Islamic scholars about the translation of the Qur’an. The first group think that the Qur’an is untranslatable, while the second believes that the translation should not be literal translation of the Verses. It

Published by Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD. Copyright (c) the author(s). This is an open access article under CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.5p.172

should focus on translating the meaning of the text or the concept intended by the specific verse. Therefore the transla-tion – in this case – will be seen as some sort of explanation or interpretation (Tafseer: تفسير) of the Quranic Text.

Aim of the Study

The present study is an attempt to investigate some lexical problems that come up due to inappropriate lexical choice in the translations of the Qur’an according to the frame se-mantics theory as one good way to achieve better translation. The study tries to discover the differences between Arabic and English languages as whether different frames can cause problems in the translation of the Holy Qur’an. In addition, the study tries to point out the strategies used by translators to avoid such problems and which factor: the linguistic back-ground or the cultural knowledge has greater influence on translating the Quranic text.

Objectives of the Study

This study attempts to look at the translation of Qur’an from its original Arabic Text into English and investigate the lexi-

Advances in Language and Literary StudiesISSN: 2203-4714

www.alls.aiac.org.au

ARTICLE INFO

Conflicts of interest: None Funding: None

Key words: Quran, Islam, Translation, Lexical Choice, Cultural Background, Linguistic Background

Article history Received: July 08, 2017 Accepted: October 05, 2017 Published: October 31, 2017 Volume: 8 Issue: 5 Advance access: October 2017

Complications of Translating the Meanings of the Holy Qur’an at Word Level in the English Language in Relation to Frame Semantic Theory 173

cal choice through working out on certain words which have been chosen from Quranic Verses and exposed to linguistic ‘Frame Semantics’ theory, as a way for better translation. The study tries to discover if there are differences in frame knowledge between Arabic and English by selecting special words. The study also tries to find out whether these English frames can cause a problem in the translation of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the source of all Islamic Teachings, Rules and Values. And we can see now the great need for translating the Qur’an; as the number of non-Arabic Muslim speakers is increasing all over the world. These believers need to under-stand their religion to assimilate its valuable teachings, and then help others to adopt the Islamic belief, by giving good models in practice. It is hoped that the results of this study will contribute to professional improvement in the transla-tion of the Holy Book.

Hypotheses

The differences in conception (frames knowledge) between (Arabic and English) can affect the translation process of the Qur’an. Arabic speakers like English speakers have got their own frame knowledge which is governed by the linguistic and social factors. The difference between the two frames means that there is a possibility of making the readers’ un-derstanding be affected, as the similarities of the frames may lead to easy translation and more understanding between the two communities.

Hypothesis 1

1-There are differences in conceptions (frame knowledge) between Arabic and English languages. Sometimes single lexical items in English vocabulary may have many mean-ings that can be used according to the context. This will make it hard for the translator to get the suitable choice, as each meaning can be used in different context in Arabic to describe a particular lexeme. This may lead to some prob-lems in getting the target meaning through the translation process, specially the translation of the Quranic texts.

Hypothesis 2

The different English frames lead to problems in the trans-lation of the Holy Qur’an. The translator can encounter a variety of choices to one lexical item that s/he intends to translate. This can make her/him choose the wrong or inap-propriate lexical choice which may affect the quality of the translation. Then the best way is to adopt some strategies to avoid possibility of the wrong choice.

Hypothesis 3

There are some strategies that translators use to overcome these problems. Choosing a suitable lexical item in the trans-lation process depends on a lot of factors such as linguistic background, social factors, and cultural knowledge and so on. This can help translators to choose the suitable lexical item. From this idea comes the fourth hypothesis of this study.

Hypothesis 4

There is/are factor/s that contribute/s more than others to the translators’ ability and determine his/her choice of one spe-cific lexeme (e.g. linguistic background/cultural knowledge/difference in linguistic systems etc...).

Significance of the Study

The importance of translating the Holy Qur’an into other languages is a practical need for some Muslim believers. It is as well a practical need for the non-Muslim to read and listen to the word of Allah. It is supposed to be the duty of every Muslim-man or woman-to help spread the CALL المبين)) of Islam to reach all people on earth. Thus, a البالغ good translation is needed to help non-Arabic speakers and non-Arabic Muslim speakers as well. A great benefit will reach other communities that hold different faith; then it will allow them a good chance to understand the Qur’an, as the main source of Islamic Religion. This will also be one practi-cal step towards setting up a dialogue to better understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims communities, to secure global peace and mutual human feelings. The study may add additional values to other fields such as sociolinguistics, psy-cholinguistics and theoretical linguistics as well.

RELEVANT LITERATURE

Lexical Semantics

Lexical semantics is an important branch of linguistic se-mantics. It is the study of what words mean and how they are related to each other with respect to their meanings. Ac-cording to Geeraerts (1992), there are four main stages in the history of lexical semantics, which are: (1) ‘pre-structural-ist’, (2) ‘structuralist and neostructuralist’, (3) ‘generativist and neogenerativist’, and (4) the cognitive semantics. We are here in no good position to go through details of the history of lexical semantics, as any reference about semantics would give satisfactory knowledge to the keen reader. But in a nut-shell we can quote Geeraerts (2017), that the history of lex-ical semantics is characterized by a succession of different theoretical approaches that are related by lines of similarity and extrapolation as well as mutual opposition. As a basic underlying distinction, Geeraerts suggests singling out the contrast between an encyclopaedist approaches on the one hand, and a more restrictive approach on the other.

Theories of Meaning

In the past philosophers used to support other theories with the theories of meaning such as the knowledge theory and the definition of right and wrong that depends on observa-tion. Recently they have understood the value of ‘meaning’ theories, not only to support other theories, but also for com-prehending different language uses (Lehrer 1970).

Linguists studied and illustrated the way that people com-municate. Accordingly, they have recognized that theories of ‘meaning’ are important in understanding how speakers go about communicating a message. Linguistically, sentences

174 ALLS 8(5):172-188

can be categorised as either meaningful or meaningless, and a sentence may have a peculiar meaning in some context, or be meaningful but having more than one interpretation in other context as in, for example, “All spinsters are married to handsome men” (Lehrer 1970:9). The meaning of a sen-tence depends on a lot of factors like: “Words themselves, setting of utterance, the identity of the speakers, the place where they come from and other kinds of non-linguistic in-formation contribute to the meaning of the sentence” (Lehrer 1970:10).

Thus, the way that we utter the words and the back-ground of the speaker beside their environment all influence the meaning of the sentence. For instance, the meaning of a “cupful of flour” is “ten ounces” in Britain while it is “eight ounces” in the United States. Additional factors like beliefs, cultural norms and shared knowledge can affect the meaning and they need to be somehow included into a theory of lin-guistics meaning (ibid).

The relationship between words on the one hand and grammar on the other, according to (Lehrer 1970:12), has some problems for instance, the proper size of the unit that can be used for semantic analysis small or long. Another problem is how to distinguish senses of words? For example, in one dictionary a fish can be defined as “legless water an-imal with a particular shape“, whilst, in another dictionary it could be defined as a more limited class of legless water animal which has gills, lays eggs and so forth.

Lehrer asks whether we can say there are two different meanings of the word ‘fish’? Similarly, can we give “eat” different meanings if we refer to different types of foods, such as, spaghetti and ice cream, simply because there are different ways of eating these foods (Lehrer 1970:12).

Moreover, it is difficult to differentiate between words that have the same sound but different senses. For example, the word “horn” has two meanings; (1) musical instrument (2) a part of an animal. There is a connection between the mean-ings, which is that a horn is part of an animal that is used as a musical instrument (Alston 1970). In this case, is it two words with different meaning or one word with different senses?

Semantics Fields and TranslationThe fields are called “semantic fields” such as the field of ‘Speech’ and all the words under it called ‘lexical set’ for example ‘verbs of speech’ such as ‘speak’ and ‘say’ and more specifically ‘murmur’ and ‘whisper’. The majority of the languages have equivalents for the general meaning of words such as ‘speak’ and ‘say’ meanwhile it becomes more difficult in specific ones (Baker 1992:18). Semantic fields help the translator to understand the value of the word in the language system and to expand the tactic he/she uses to deal with non-equivalence. Besides, it gives the translator the awareness of similarity and differences between the source and the target language.

Baker (1992:20) defines non-equivalence at word level as “the target language has no direct equivalent for a word which occurs in the source text”. (ibid)

Many factors influence non-equivalence, the language nature beside the context and the purpose of the translation.

For instance, what is culture-specific concept? These con-cepts can be totally different in the source and target cul-ture, e.g. the word ‘privacy’ in English which cannot be understood in many different other cultures (Baker, 1992). Another example is given by Albusairi (2000) like the word ‘subhiya’ or ‘shaila’ which stand for certain Sudanese mar-riage concepts.

Moreover, sometimes a concept in the source language can be understood in the target one but it is not lexical-ized. For instance, the word ‘standard’ is an adjective can be understood in Arabic but it has not got an equivalent (Baker,1992:21). The lack of specific terms can be another non-equivalence problem for example, the field ‘house’ in English has got a lot of words under it like ‘cottage’, ‘croft’, ‘lodge’… which do not have exact equivalents in many other languages (Baker,1992:23). Another important part of this area of semantics is the relation between the lexis them-selves that is known as ‘Sense Relations’. (ibid)

Frame SemanticsFrame Semantics is a scientific attempt to understand and get the meaning of a word through investigating its relation to the frame that it belongs to (Cheong 2000). Fillmore (1977a) describes frame semantics as “meanings are relativized to scenes”.

According to Fillmore (1985:231) understanding frame semantics needs understanding the “relationship between linguistic context and the interpreters’ full understanding of the texts in their context”. This can be explained by using the following example from Fillmore (1977c): Mark and Mike are identical twins. They are in the hospital; each one is sit-ting in his bed inside his room in the same position. A nurse walks beside Mark’s room she says, “I see that Mark is able to sit up now. While she says “I see that Mike is able to sit down now”, when she comes across Mike’s room. Thus the nurse’s remarks can be interpreted according to the hospital scenes and frames by relativizing the meaning of her com-ments to the relevant scenes.

In other words, the translator cannot translate effectively unless he understands the word, its meaning, and the frame which it belongs to. For this reason frame semantics can be suitable for improving the translation (Cheong 2000).

Getting a meaning of a word can be easily done if the words are related to their background frame (Cheong 2000). Two sub-categories of frames are categorized by Fillmore (1965:231-233) who says, “some frames are undoubtedly in-nate in the sense that they appear naturally and unavoidably in the cognitive development of every human…others are learned through experience or training (e.g. knowledge of artefacts and social institution).”

SummarySo far, we have discussed lexical semantics and three the-ories of meaning from different perspectives. We have dis-cussed theoretical background on field semantics and sense relations. Collocation plays role in the discussion and how it is essential for getting the meaning of words. Moreover, we


have investigated frame semantic theory as a tool in finding good and proper equivalents of the meanings of words and expressions. Getting appropriate alternatives of the meaning of the words can facilitate and achieve good translation and positive communication.

Lexical and Morphological Challenges in the Translation of the Holy Qur’an:There are many translations of the Qur’an into other lan-guages. When the translator tries to reproduce the meaning of a text into another language, this may change the origi-nal meaning. Consequently, translations of the Qur’an were traditionally refused by Muslim scholars. Abu Hanifah (the famous Muslim scholar) did not permit reading the opening chapter (alfatiha) in any form of translation and confirmed that the verses of the Qur’an should be read in Arabic in the prayer for all Muslims (Arabic or non-Arabic), Raof (2001).

Accordingly, it is believed that all translations are inade-quate and that an acceptable translation is one that explains the significance of the Quranic verses (Tony 1980:49). Ab-delwali (2007) suggests that “The Qur’an is artistically con-structed and strongly rhetorical in comparison with ordinary prose”. This makes it unique and distinguishable from other Arabic prose, Raof (2001).

In a survey reported by Abdelwali (2007) of Qur’an trans-lations into English, the results showed that the majority of the translators ignore the idiosyncrasies and prototypical fea-tures of the Qur’an text, while they care for communicating the message. That is to say they do not pay attention to its special features as a unique Arabic Text.

Each language has its own semantic features which can be more specific than in other languages. (Abdelwali 2007).

This specificity can be realized either through lexemes or the morphological system of the language. On the lexeme level English can be semantically more precise than Arabic, for example in describing certain military actions. The words “bombardment” and “shelling” would be translated in Ara-bic as qasf bil midfa’iyya,(قذف بالمدفعية) and qasf bit Ta’iraat بالطائرات) respectively. However, both of these words ,(قذف can have the same meaning in Arabic unless more words are added through paraphrasing to give the meaning of either ‘bombardment’ or ‘shelling’.

According to (Abdelwali 2007), Arabic can be more accurate in grammatical meanings expressed by certain morphemes, which require some sort of paraphrasing to translate them into English. The verb patterns in Arab represent a framework in showing the subtleness of the meaning of the words. This can be shown in the following verses:

(1) Nazzala’alayka–l-kittab bil-Haqqi muSaddiqan lim-ma bayna yadayhi wa’anzala t-tawraat wal-injiiil.

نجيل) قا لما بين يديه وأنزل التوراة وال ل عليك الكتاب بالحق مصد (نزThis is translated as follows:“It is He who sent down to you (step by step) in truth, the

book, confirming what went before it, and He sent down the law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) (3:3) (Yusuf Ali:121). “nazzala” نزل indicates a piecemeal revelation of the Qur’an as well as a repetition of an action (which, in this

case, lasted for 23 years). Meanwhile, “anzala” أنزل signifies the revelation all at once. Furthermore, it shows the differ-ence between the piecemeal revelation and the revelation of the Torah and Gospel (Abdelwali 2007).

Another example can be shown here:(2) Huwal-ladhi ja’la sh-shamsa Diyaa’an wal qamara

nurran''هو الذى جعل الشمس ضياءآ والقمر نورآ ''(10:5)Its translation is as follows: “It is He who made the

Sun to be shining glory and the moon to be a light” (Ali, 983:484). The words “Diyaa’an’ (ضياءآ) and “Nuuran” (نورا), indicate different features. The former means “the genera-tion of heat”, and “not shining glory,” whilst the latter means “no generation of heat but light only”. Moreover, “Diyaa’ indicates that the Sun gives out its own light but the moon-light is a reflection of its light as signified by “Nuuran.” On the other hand, a word like “duuni” is difficult to translate as well as paraphrase: (3) Qual’ud’uul-ladhiina za’amtum min duuni l-laahi.

''قل ادعوالذين زعمتم من دون هللا''(34:22)The above is translated as follows: “Say: appeal to those

whom you claim to instead of God” Irving (1985:238). Du-uni is variously translated as “dignity”,” might” and “there is nothing above or equal to Him”. Accordingly, the mean-ing here requires explanatory notes from the translators. In addition to that, the sense of the lexical words is restricted by the translators. Some words have been translated as their referent in the real world without considering their sense in the language system.(ibid).

METHODOLOGYThis part deals with the methodology used in this study. It deals first with the choice of translations to be investigated. The second section contains a full description of the sub-jects. The instruments are described in the section of the re-search procedures. Moreover, the section will explain how the collected data would be statistically analyzed.

Choice of TranslationsThe present study uses five translations of the Qur’an.• The first translation is The Holy Qur’an: translation and

commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1934).• The second translation, The meaning of the Glorious

Koran, by Pickthall (1930), who is a convert to Islam.• The third translation is The Koran Commonly Called

Alkoran of Mohammed by George Sale (1734).• Shakir’s translation The Qur’an Arabic and English

(1981) is the fourth translation.• The last translation is Qaribullah’s The Meaning of the

Glorious Koran (2001) in collaboration with Sheik Ahmed Darwich from Al-Azhar.

The choice of the five translations is based on the cultural background of the translators since it has been assumed that the cultural background may affect translation of the Qur’an into English.

Yusuf Ali is an Indian Muslim, who was fluent in Arabic though his background, although he was not an Arab. He

176 ALLS 8(5):172-188

translated the Qur’an representing Sunna(1) principles. Sale and Pickthall share the same origin and background as they were both British; whereas Sale was Christian and was ac-cused of being anti-Islam (see Mohammed 2005), Pickthall converted to Islam. Habib and Qaribullah are Arab Muslims who represent different doctrines. Habib represents Shi’a(2)

and Qaribullah represents Sufi(3).

In order to compare and contrast these five English trans-lations, (2) words are chosen. The words are chosen because they are key words that refer to the most important values in Muslim Heritage. The words chosen are polysemous nouns that describe positive entities such as virtues and humanity. For example, the word virtue represents a concept that plays an important role in building and maintaining social rela-tions in a broad sense, and ties between individuals especial-ly family members. The (2) chosen words correspond to (18) equivalent words in English as each word in Arabic has got between two to five alternatives in the English translations.

The researchers first intended to use two corpora, English and Arabic, to gain insight into the concepts described by the words selected for this study, and do a collocation analysis. However, while a good English corpus is readily available (e.g. the British National Corpus), there is no such corpus for Arabic. Another problem in relation to Arabic was that corpora of modern Arabic are available, but they seem to be commonly used only in newspaper archives as in Al-Hayat the daily newspaper. What does not seem to be available is a corpus that balances different genres, like the British Na-tional Corpus (BNC).

The Qur’an is revealed in Classical Arabic. Thus, the collocation found in the corpus which consists of modern Arabic would not necessarily be relevant to the language of the Qur’an. For these reasons, we decided not to use corpora.

SubjectsThe sample of the study is a group of Muslim Arabs of differ-ent ages, with different educational qualifications and differ-ent occupations, who speak Arabic as their first language and English as their second language. The sample of subjects was drawn from Arab students studying in British universities as Manchester and Salford as well as the Arab community in the town of Lancaster. All the subjects were residents of the UK, and have been living there for one 1 year, up to 35 years. (Table 3.1) shows the distribution of population according to age group and sex of the respondents to the questionnaires.

InstrumentsThe instrument used is the questionnaire designed for the purpose of the study. It was intended to elicit participants’ opinions about the appropriateness of the given translations, as found across the five Qur’an translations in question.

The questionnaire consists of (18) items. Each item asks about the appropriateness of (3 to 5) possible options of translations of a single lexical item, selected from the differ-ent translations of the Qur’an.

The words were chosen according to differences in meanings in different context. Each lexical item is followed

by five options. However, the options are sometimes fewer than five options, because on a number of occasions some translations choose the same English words. For example, the word ‘assalam’ is given the same equivalent ‘salutation’ by Yusuf Ali, Qaribullah and Shakir. Thus, the five transla-tions are reduced to three (see 3 below). Each word is given in the verse in which it is used in the translations. Here are some examples taken from the questionnaire:

فتبينوا ول تقولوا لمن ألقى إليكم) يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا ضربتم في سبيل الل مغانم كثيرة كذ لك كنتم السلم لست مؤمنا تبتغون عرض الحياة الدنيا فعند الل عليكم فتبينوا إن الل كان بما تعملون خبيرا). (النساء 94 ن قبل فمن الل (م

Three different translations of the word (السلم:Assalam) : 3 options in the questionnaireMeaning 1

Completely appropriate

2 3 4 5 Completely inappropriate

1- Who offers you salutation2- Who offereth you peace3- Who saluteth you

We have utilized the questionnaire as instrument with a Likert 5-points scale. Each alternative is assigned a numeri-cal value ranging from 5 for ‘completely appropriate’ to 1 for ‘completely inappropriate’ with 2, 3, and 4 intermediate be-tween the two extremes and left without explicit descriptors. These points were left blank in order to encourage subjects to treat them as equidistant from each other. The advantage of this is that the Likert scale is not necessarily an ordinal scale, as is usually the case, but may be interpreted as an interval scale, which makes it possible to do more powerful statistical tests on the results. Cramer (1994) states that by using a Likert scale “with interval level measurement, the intervals between numbers denote equal amounts of the at-tribute being assessed”.

The first four items of the questionnaire are about the word ‘السالم’ (assalam) as used in different contexts and dif-ferent translations. It has different senses which are; ‘saluta-tion’ twice, ‘safety’, ‘paradise’, and ‘peace’. Peace also is one of the names of Allah Almighty. The following four items are about the word الفضل ‘alfadl’, which is a polyse-

Table 3.1. Distribution of subjects according to age and sexAge group Sex Total

Female MaleLess than 30 14 11 2531 to 40 7 23 3041 to 50 3 15 1851 or more 1 2 3Total 25 51 76


mous word having the meaning of ‘grace’, ‘bounty’, ‘gener-osity’, ‘wealth’, and ‘favour’.

A pilot study had been carried out to test the validity of the questionnaire using earlier versions of the questionnaires which were distributed to a sample drawn from the target group. The sample consisted of 20 participants, 15 of them were students at Lancaster University and 5 participants from the town of Lancaster, to comment on the 18 questions which constituted the questionnaire (Arabic–English questionnaire). In the light of the comments received some modifications were made as a result of questions that emerged in the pilot study. The participants were asked to write their own trans-lation of the items in the questionnaire if they wished. Ten participants have given their own translation of some words.

Procedures

We have distributed 100 copies but only 76 were returned completed, 39 of the Arabic version and 37 of the English version were filled in and returned. Since the study is quan-titative rather than being qualitative, the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS, version 16.0) was used to ana-lyze the data. Means comparison was carried out for the first questionnaire.

Summary

To sum up, this section dealt with the description of the meth-od followed in conducting the study. The subjects and the in-struments were described and the procedures followed were stated. The choice of the words to be investigated was made and five translations following each word have been made. The questionnaire was used to measure the appropriateness of the five translations for Arab Muslims who speak English as their second language. The English version was admin-istered to English native speakers. It intended to discover differences in two speakers’ frame knowledge. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to analyze the collected data.

DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCISSION

This chapter deals with the data analysis. It includes the anal-ysis of the data collected by the questionnaire (Arabic-En-glish), for Muslims, which consisted of 18 items. The fre-quencies are presented and the mean scores are rank-ordered and the chi square test results are included. The analysis of the data is based on Statistical Package for Social Sciences.

Arabic-English Questionnaire

This section includes the analysis of the Arabic-English questionnaire which deals with the translation of the words, ‘asslam’, ‘alfadl’, in different contexts (verses).The partici-pant were asked to choose what they think is the most appro-priate translation.

Firstly, the different translations of the word ‘assalam’ which is translated ‘who offers you salutation’, ‘ who of-fereth you peace’ and ‘ who saluteth you’ are analyzed in the Tables 4.1A, 4.1B, 4.1C below.

Table 4.1A above shows the translation given by Yusuf Ali, ‘who offers you salutation’. 28.9% of the participants think it is completely appropriate while 13.2% of them see it as completely inappropriate.

Table 4.1B shows that the translation given by Pickthall, Shakir and Qaribullah, ‘who offerth you peace’. 48.75% of the participants think that it is completely appropriate while 9.2% of them see it as completely inappropriate.

Table 4.1C shows the translation given by Sale, ‘who salutheth you’. 18.4% of the participants think it is com-pletely appropriate and 14.5% of them see it as completely inappropriate.

Table 4.1A. Frequencies and percentages of Yusuf Ali, Shakir and Qaribullah’s translations for the first meaning of the word ‘assalam’ يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا ضربتم في سبيل الله فتبينوا ول تقولوا لمن ألقى إليكم السالم لست مؤمنا تبتغون عرض الحياة الدنيا فعند الله مغانم كثيرة كذ لك كنتمن قبل فمن الله عليكم فتبينوا إن الله كان بما تعملون خبيرا) . (النساء 94 (م

ItemWho offers you salutation

Scale Frequency PercentCompletely inappropriate 10 13.22 21 27.63 16 21.14 7 9.2Completely appropriate 22 28.9Total 76 100.0

Table 4.1B. Frequencies and percentages of Pickthall’s translation for the first meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemWho offereth you peace

Scale Frequency PercentCompletely appropriate 7 9.22 18 23.73 9 11.84 5 6.6Completely inappropriate 37 48.7Total 76 100.0

Table 4.1C. Frequencies and percentages of Sale’s translation for the first meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemWho saluteth you


178 ALLS 8(5):172-188

Table 4.2 above shows the mean scores, standard devia-tions and the rank ordering of the different translations of the first meaning of the word ‘assalam’. The lowest and highest mean scores are compared and rank ordered. The chi square test is also performed to show the relation between the High-est and lowest mean scores of translations of the word ‘as-salam’ in its first context.

The translation which received the lowest mean score was Sale’s translation (M=2.87), while Pickthall’s transla-tion received the highest mean score of (M=3.62).

The next lowest mean score was assigned to Yusuf Ali, Shakir and Qaribullah’s translation. Therefore the difference between the appropriateness of these translations is highly significant. In other words the translation by Yusuf Ali, Sha-kir and Qaribullah is clearly judged to be more appropriate than Sale’s.

From the results shown in (Table 4.2) it is clear that the translations of Pickthall is more appropriate than Sale’s fol-lowed by Yusuf Ali, Shakir and Qaribullah’s translation. Sale’s translation of the first meaning of the word ‘al-salam’ is the least appropriate.

The word ‘assalam’ in its second context is translated as, ‘ways of peace and safety’ by Yusuf Ali, ‘ways of safety’, by Shakir and, ‘paths of peace’ by Pickthall, Qaribullah and Sale as shown in Tables 4.3A, 4.3B and 4.3C below.

The tables above show the different translations of the second meaning of the word ‘assalam’.

Table 4.3A shows the translation given by Yusuf Ali ‘ways of peace and safety’. 46.1% of the respondents say it is completely appropriate whereas 3.9% say it is complete-ly inappropriate. Table 4.3B shows the translation given by Pickthall, Qaribullah and Sale, ‘ paths of peace’.25% of the respondents rated it as completely appropriate and 10.5% of them rate it as completely inappropriate. Table 4.3C shows the translation given by Shakir, ‘ways of safety’. 14.5% of the respondents say it is completely appropriate and 13.2% of them say it is completely inappropriate.

Table 4.4 above shows the mean scores, standard devi-ations and the rank order of the translations of the second meaning of the word ‘assalam’. The mean scores assigned to each are ranked ordered and compared and then a chi square test was performed to assess the relative appropriacy of the various translations. Shakir’s translation was assigned the lowest mean score (M=2.83) while the highest mean score was received by Yusuf Ali’s translation (M=3.70). The dif-ference between Yusuf Ali’s translation and Shakir’s trans-lation is not significant. The second lowest mean score was received by Pickthall, Qaribullah and Sale’s translations (M=3.22).This result indicates a significant difference be-tween the translations of Pickthall, Qaribulla, Sale on one hand and the translation of Shakir on the other hand. The word ‘assalam’ in its third context translated as ‘home of peace’, by Yusuf Ali. ‘abode of peace’, by Pickthall, Shakir and Qaribullah and ‘dwelling of peace’, by Sale.

As to Yusuf Ali’s translation, ‘home of peace’.42.1% of the respondents think that it is completely appropriate while 10.5% of them think it is completely inappropriate (Table 4.5A). ‘Abode of peace’, given by Pickthall, Sha-

Table 4.2. Mean scores, standard deviations and rank ordering for all the translations of the first meaning of the word ‘assalam’Translations N Mean Standard

deviationRank order

Yusuf Ali 76 3.1316 1.43613 2Pickthall 76 3.6184 1.50525 1Shakir 76 3.1316 1.43613 2Qaribullah 76 3.1316 1.43613 2Sale 76 2.8684 1.32002 3Total 76

Table 4.3A. Frequencies and percentages of Yusuf Ali’s translation for the second meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemWays of peace and safety


Table 4.3B. Frequencies and percentages of Pickthall, Qaribullah and Sale’s translations for the second meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemPaths of peace


Table 4.3C. Frequencies and percentages of Shakir’s translation for the second meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemWays of safety



kir and Qaribullah was seen as completely appropriate by 26.3%of he respondents and as completely inappropriate by 13.2% of the respondents (Table 4.5B)The respondents. Sale’s translation ‘dwelling of peace’ was seen as completely inappropriate by 28.9% of the participants while 22.4% of them see it as completely appropriate.

Table 4.6 above shows the mean scores, standard devia-tions and the ranks ordering of the third meaning of the word ‘assalam’. The mean scores assigned to each are ranked or-dered, compared and then a chi square test was conducted to assess the relative appropriacy of the various translations. The lowest mean score was assigned to the translation of Sale (M=2.87) while the highest mean score was assigned to Yu-suf Ali’s translation (M=3.51). The difference between the two translations is significant. This leads to the conclusion that the subjects have preference to Yusuf Ali’s translation than to Sale’s. Pickthall, Shakir and Qaribullah’s translations were assigned the same mean score (M=3.18). The result shows that there is a very high significant difference between Pickthall, Shakir, Qaribullah’s translations on one hand and Sale’s on the other hand. Thus, they have been judged by the respondents as more appropriate translations than Sale’s.

Accordingly, the rank ordering of the five translations of the word ‘assalam’ in this context is, Yusuf Ali’s translation ranked first as the most appropriate translation. The second most appro-priate translation were Shakir’s Pickthall and Qaribullah’s fol-lowed by Sale’s. It was rated as the least appropriate translation.

In the last context of the word ‘assalam’ is translated as, ‘the source of peace and perfection’, ‘ peace’, ‘giver of peace’, and ‘the peace’.

Tables 4.7A, 4.7B, 4.7C, 4.7D above show the transla-tions of the fourth and last meaning of the word ‘assalam’. Table 4.7A shows the translation given by Yusuf Ali, ‘the source of peace and perfection’.44.7% of the respondents think that it is completely appropriate and only 3.9% of them think it is completely inappropriate. Table 4.7B shows the translation given by Pickthall, ‘peace’. 19.7% of the respon-dents think that it is completely appropriate while 17.1% of them think it is completely inappropriate.

Table 4.7C show the translation given by Shakir and Sale, ‘the Giver of peace’. 18.4% of the respondents think it is completely appropriate and 11.8% of them see it as com-pletely inappropriate. Table 4.7D shows the translation of Qaribullah, ‘the peace’. 30.3 % of the respondents think it is

Table 4.4. Mean scores, standard deviations and the rank ordering of all translations of the second meaning of the word ‘assalam’Translations N Mean Standard

deviationRank order


Table 4.5A. Frequencies and percentages of Yusuf Ali’s translation for the third meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemHome of peace


Table 4.5B. Frequencies and percentages of Pickthall, Shakir and Qaribullah’s translation for the third meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemAbode of peace


Table 4.6. Mean scores, standard deviations and the rank ordering of the translations for the third meaning of the word ‘assalam’Translations N Mean Standard

deviationRank order


Table 4.5C. Frequencies and percentages of Sale’s translation for the third meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemDwelling of peace


AQ1

180 ALLS 8(5):172-188

completely appropriate while 18.4% of them see it as com-pletely inappropriate.

Table 4.8 above shows the mean scores, standard devia-tions and the rank order of the translations of the last mean-ing of the word ‘assalam’. The mean scores were compared and ranked ordered according to the lowest and highest mean scores. The lowest mean score was received by the transla-tion of Pickthall (M=2.89) and the highest by the transla-tion of Yusuf Ali (M=3.57).The difference between the two translations is significant. That is to say that the translation of Yusuf Ali was seen better in terms of appropriateness than the translation of Pickthall.

The second lowest mean score was assigned to Sha-kir, Qaribullah and sale’s translation (M=2.91). There is no significant difference between the translation of Shakir,

Qaribullah, Sale on one hand and Pickthall’s on the other hand.

The next highest mean score was received by the transla-tion of Qaribullah (m=34.95). This result indicates a signifi-cant difference between the two translations. That means the translation of Qaribullah is considered to be more appropri-ate than Pickthall’s translation.

Thus, the best translation in terms of appropriateness is the translation of Yusuf Ali followed by Qaribullah, Shakir and sale’s translation and the least appropriate one is Shakir’s.

Secondly: The second word is ‘alfadl الفضل’ which has got four different meanings in different contexts. For the first meaning, it is translated as, ‘liberality’, ‘‘giving of free gift’, ‘kindness and generosity’.

Table 4.9A, 4.9B, 4.9C and 4.9D above show the trans-lations of the first meaning of the word ‘alfadl’. Table 4.9A shows the translation given by Yusuf Ali and Sale, ‘liber-ality’.27.6% of the respondents think it is completely in-appropriate and 22.4% of them see it as completely appro-priate. Table 4.9B shows the translation given by Pickthall, ‘kindness’.34.2% of the participants rate it as completely appropriate while 10.5% of them see it as completely inap-propriate. Table 4.9C shows the translation given by Shakir, ‘giving free gift’.27.6% of the participants think that it is completely inappropriate and 11.8% of them see it as com-pletely appropriate. Table 4.9D shows the translation given by Qaribullah, ‘generosity’. 27.6% of the participants think it is completely appropriate and only 5.3% of them see it as completely inappropriate.

Table 4.10 above shows the mean scores, standard de-viations and rank ordering of the given translation of the

Table 4.7A. Frequencies and percentages of Yusuf Ali’s translation for the fourth meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemThe source of peace and perfection


Table 4.7B. Frequencies and percentages of Pickthall’s translation for the fourth meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemPeace


Table 4.7C. Frequencies and percentages of Shakir and Sale’s translations for the fourth meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemThe giver of peace


Table 4.7D. Frequencies and percentages of Qaribullah’s translation for the fourth meaning of the word ‘assalam’

ItemThe peace


Table 4.8. Mean scores, standard deviations and rank ordering for all translations for the fourth meaning of the word ‘assalam’Translations N Mean Standard

deviationRank order



first meaning of the word ‘alfadl’. The lowest mean scores are compared and rank ordered. The lowest mean score of the word ‘alfadl’, was scored by the translation of Shakir (M=2.80) while the highest was received by Qaribullah’s (M=3.39). The difference between the two translations is not significant which indicates that the translation of Qaribullah is judged to be about equally appropriate as the translation of Shakir.The next lowest mean score was scored by the trans-lation of Yusuf and Sale (M=2.88).Accordingly there is no significant differences between the translation of Yusuf and Sale’s translation on one hand and on the other hand Qa-ribullah’s.

The third lowest mean score was assigned to Pickthall’s translation. As a result the relation between the two transla-tions is not significant.In other words the translation of Sale is better than Shakir’s, although Shakir has an Arabic back-ground while Sale is British with different native language and culture. The result shows that the translation of Sale is the best translation followed by the translation of Yusuf Ali while the translations of Pickthall, Qaribullah and Shakir are as roughly equally appropriate by our participants.

The second meaning of the word ‘alfadl’ is translated as, ‘all bounties’, ‘the bounty’ and ‘excellence’.

The Tables (4.11A, 4.11B, 4.11C, 4.11D and (4.11E) above show the different translations given for the second meaning of the word ‘alfadl’. Table 4.11A shows the trans-lation given by Yusuf Ali, ‘all bounties’. 36.8% of the par-ticipants say it is completely appropriate while only 2.6% of them see it as completely inappropriate. Table 4.11B shows the translation given by Pickthall, ‘the bounty’.25% of the participants rate it as completely appropriate and only 7.9% of them rate it as completely appropriate. Table 4.11C shows the translation given by Shakir, ‘grace’.26.3% of the respon-dents say it is completely appropriate, whereas 11.8% say it is completely inappropriate. Table 4.11D shows the transla-tion given by Qaribullah, ‘bounty’.30.3% of the participants see it as completely appropriate while 5.3% of them see it as completely inappropriate. Table 5.11E shows the translation given by Sale, ‘excellence’.39.5% of the respondents think it is completely inappropriate and only 6.6% of them think it is completely appropriate.

Table 4.12 above shows the means scores, standard de-viation and the ranks ordering of the second meaning of the word ‘alfadl’. The mean scores assigned to each are ranked

Table 4.9A. Frequencies and percentages of Yusuf Ali and Sale’s translation for the first meaning of the word ‘alfadl’ وإن طلقتموهن من قبل أن تمسوهن وقد فرضتم لهن فريضة فنصف ما) - فرضتم إل أن يعفون أو يعفو الذي بيده عقدة النكاح وأن تعفوا أقرب للتقوى( ول تنسوا الفضل بينكم إن الله بما تعملون بصير). (البقرة237

ItemLiberality


Table 4.9B. Frequencies and percentages of Pickthall’s translation for the first meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemKindness


Table 4.9C. Frequencies and percentages of Shakir’s translation for the first meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemGiving free gift


Table 4.9D. Frequencies and percentages of Qaribullah’s translation for the first meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemGenerosity


Table 4.10. Mean scores, standard deviations and the rank ordering for all translations of the first meaning of the word ‘alfadl’Translations N Mean Standard

deviationRank order

Yusuf Ali 76 2.8816 1.53160 3Pickthall 76 3.1974 1.46987 2Habib 76 2.8026 1.41440 4Qaribullah 76 3.3947 1.23374 1Sale 76 2.8816 1.53160 3Valid N (listwise) 76

AQ1

182 ALLS 8(5):172-188

ordered, compared and then a chi square test was performed to assess the relative appropriacy of the various translations. The lowest mean score between the five translations was re-ceived by Sale’s translation (M=2.42) and the highest was assigned to Yusuf Ali’s (M=3.50). There is no significant difference between the translation of Yusuf Ali and the trans-lation of Sale and this lack of significance between the two translations is probably due to some outliers in the partici-pants’ responses.

The translation of Pickthall scored the next lowest mean score (M=3.09).The difference between the two translations is not significant. The translation of Shakir received the low-est mean score after Pickthall’s (M=3.17). There is no signif-icant difference between the two translations. The last lowest mean score among the five translations was assigned to Qa-ribullah’s translation (M=3.31). The values indicate no sig-nificant difference between the translation of Yusuf Ali and Qaribullah’s. Therefore, all the translations are perceived as equally appropriate by the participants. The third meaning of the word ‘alfadl’ is translated here as, ‘who possess grace and amplitude of means’, ‘ who possess dignity and ease’, ‘who possess bounty and plenty swear’, ‘who possess abun-dance of wealth’ and ‘who possess grace and abundance’.

Tables (4.13A, 4.13B, 4.13C, 4.13D and 4.13E) above show the different translations of third meaning of the word ‘alfadl’. Table 4.13A shows the translation given by Yusuf Ali, ‘with who are endued grace and amplitude of means’. 35.5% of the participants think it is completely appropri-

Table 4.11A. Frequencies and percentages of Yusuf Ali’s translation for the second meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemAll bounties


Table 4.11B. Frequencies and percentages of Pickthall’s translation for the second meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemThe bounty


Table 4.11C. Frequencies and percentages of Shakir’s translation for the second meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemGrace


Table 4.11D. Frequencies and percentages of Qaribulah’s translation for the second meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemBounty


Table 4.11E. Frequencies and percentages of Sale’s translation for the second meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemExcellence


Table 4.12. Mean scores, standard deviations and rank ordering for all the translations of the second meaning of the word ‘alfadl’Translations N Mean Standard

deviationRank order

Yusuf Ali 76 3.5000 1.30128 5Pickthall 76 3.0921 1.34836 2Shakir 76 3.1711 1.37974 3Qaribullah 76 3.3158 1.32876 4Sale 76 2.4211 1.36883 1Valid N (listwise) 76


ate whereas only 9.5% see it as completely inappropriate. Table 4.13B shows the translation given by Pickthall, ‘who possess dignity and easy’.25% of the respondents rate it as completely inappropriate and only 9.2% of them see it as completely appropriate. Table 4.13C shows the translation given by Shakir, ‘who possess grace abundance’.25% of the respondents think it is completely appropriate and 11.5% of them think it is completely inappropriate. Table 4.13D shows the translation given by Qaribullah, ‘who possess dignity and plenty swear’.18.4% of the participants see it as completely inappropriate while 10.5% of them see it as completely appropriate. Table4.13E shows the translation given by Sale ‘who possess an abundance of wealth’.32.9% of the participants think it is completely appropriate while only 5.3% of them think it is completely inappropriate.

Table 4.14 above shows the mean scores, standard devi-ation and the rank ordering of the third meaning of the word ‘alfadl’. The mean scores were compared and ranked ordered according to the lowest and highest mean scores. The dif-ference between the two translations is not significant. The next lowest mean score was assigned to the translation of Qaribullah (M=2.87). Accordingly, the difference between the two translations is not significant. The lowest mean score after the translation of Qaribullah was received by the trans-lation of Shakir (M=3.30). There is no significant relation between the translation of Shakir and Yusuf Ali’s. As to the third meaning of the word ‘alfadl’, the lowest mean score was assigned to Sale’s translation (M=3.45). The difference between the two translation is not significant. All the trans-lations according to this result are the same in terms of their appropriateness. The fourth meaning of the word ‘alfadl’ is translated as ‘grace a bounding’, ‘infinite bounty’, ‘mighty grace’, ‘great favor’ and ‘great bounty’.

Tables 4.15A, 4.15.B, 4.15.C,4.15D and 4.15E) above show the different translation of the fourth meaning of the word ‘alfadl’. Table4.15A shows the translation given by Yu-suf Ali ‘grace abounding’.21.1% of the participant think that it is completely appropriate and 10.5% of them think it is completely inappropriate. Table 4.15B shows the translation given by Pickthall ‘infinite bounty’.35.5% of the respon-dents see it as appropriate while only 5.3% of them see it as completely inappropriate. Table 4.15C shows the translation given by Shakir ‘mighty grace’.32.9% of the participants

Table 4.13A. Frequencies and percentages of Yusuf Ali’s translation for the third meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemWho are endued grace and amplitude of means


Table 4.13B. Frequencies and percentages of Pickthall’s translation for the third meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemWho possess dignity and easy


Table 4.13C. Frequencies and percentages of Shakir’s translation for the third meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemWho possess grace an abundance


Table 4.13D. Frequencies and percentages of Qaribullah’s translation of the third meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemWho possess dignity and plenty swear


Table 4.13E. Frequencies and percentages of Sale’s translation of the third meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemWho possess a abundance of wealth


184 ALLS 8(5):172-188

see it as completely appropriate and 9.2% of them see it as completely inappropriate. Table 4.15D shows the translation given by Qaribullah ‘great favor’.17.1% of the respondents think it is completely appropriate and 13.2% of them as com-pletely inappropriate. Table4.15E shows the translation giv-en by Sale ‘great beneficence’.19.7% of the participants see it as completely inappropriate while 18.4% of them see it as completely appropriate.

Table 4.16 shows the mean score, standard deviations and rank ordering of all the translations for the fourth mean-ing of the word ‘alfadl’. The lowest mean scores are com-pared and rank ordered. The lowest mean score was received Sale’s translation (M=2.84) while the highest one scored by Pickthall translation (M=3.41). Accordingly, the difference between these two translations is not significant. The next

Table 4.14. Mean scores, standard deviations and rank ordering of all translations of the third meaning of the word ‘alfadl’Translations N Mean Standard

deviationRank order


Table 4.15A. Frequencies and percentages of Yusuf Ali’s translation of the fourth meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemGrace abounding


Table 4.15B. Frequencies and percentages of Pickthall’s translation for the fourth meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemInfinite bounty


Table 4.15C. Frequencies and percentages of Shakir’s translation for the fourth meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemMighty grace


Table 4.15D. Frequencies and percentages of Qaribullah’s translation of the fourth meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemGreat favor


Table 4.15E. Frequencies and percentages of Sale’s translation for the fourth meaning of the word ‘alfadl’

ItemGreat beneficence


Table 4.16. Mean scores, standard deviations and the rank ordering of all translations for the fourth meaning of the word ‘alfadl’Translation N Mean Standard

deviationRank order



lowest mean score was scored by Qaribullah’s translation (M=2.92). The difference between the two translations is not significant. The translation of Yusuf Ali received the next mean score (M=3.13). Consequently, the relation between the two translations is not significant. The lowest mean score was assigned to Shakir translation (M=3.24)).There is thus a significant difference between the two translations.

FINDINGS

Summary

This study attempted to look into the lexical choices of the translation of the Qur’an. It was planned to find out whether these lexical choices affect the meaning and accordingly the readers’ understanding. There were 76 participants consti-tuted the final sample of this responded to the questionnaire (Arabic-English questionnaire). The presentation of the data (part 4) included a great deal of discussion. Thus, in this concluding chapter a summary of the findings, conclusion, recommendations and suggestions will be presented. The re-sponses of the 76 participants to an 18-item questionnaire (Arabic-English questionnaire) have been tabulated and ex-amined as shown in Appendix I.

The data analysis presented in part 4 revealed that the na-tive speakers translators were linguistically equal to non- na-tive speakers and vise versa. This is confirmed by the rank ordering of the five translations. The first position was as-signed to Yusuf Ali while both the native speakers occupied the second and third positions consecutively. This also indi-cates that the linguistic factor is of great importance in the translation process. Moreover, the translators’ attitude plays no role in the translation process or in the translators’ perfor-mance as in the case of Sale.

It is also confirmed that there are differences in concep-tion (frame knowledge) between the Arab and native speak-ers. These differences are oppositeness, generality comple-mentarities and some cultural concepts differences. These differences can affect the readers’ understanding.

According to the above results the hypotheses of the study are confirmed.

The first hypothesis is, “There are differences in concep-tions (frame knowledge) between Arabic and English lan-guages”. However, many of the respondents of the second questionnaire (word association) did not give free associa-tions and accordingly the result is limited, but at least there are noticeable differences in conception (frame knowledge) between the two languages speakers. The differences are op-positeness, generality complementarities in addition to some cultural differences.

The second hypothesis is, “Different English frames lead to problems in the translation of the Holy Qur’an”. The dif-ference in the frame knowledge of the native speakers’ trans-lations is not acute. They are almost equal. It is not a problem at least for the 2 words which are the subjects of the present study.

The third hypothesis is, “There are some strategies that the translator uses to overcome these problems”. The trans-lators give general English meaning and at the same time

give several words or one phrase to translate a single Arabic word.

The fourth hypothesis is, “There are factors that contribute more to the translators’ ability (linguistic background/cultural knowledge”. The ranking of the five translations showed that the native speakers’ linguistics knowledge resulted in good translation irrespective of the negative attitudes towards Is-lam (as in the case of Sale) and the cultural background as in the case of (Sale and Pickthall) who converted to Islam.

Some participants gave their own translations for some of the words in the first questionnaire. They ranked the transla-tion and at the same time they added their own translations. The most frequent words given other translation by the re-spondents were ‘assalam’ in the first position ‘Alqa elykum assalam’ translated as ‘greeting’ and ‘assalam’ in the third position ‘Dar assalam’ translated as ‘paradise’.

It is clear that these 2 words chosen to base this study on are not representative of the whole translation and they are limited to this study.

Implications of the studyThe results of this study have implications for research on the translation of the Qur’an.1. The extensive literature review of the translation of the

Qur’an may encourage further correlation and empirical investigation of effective ways for translating the Holy Qur’an.

2. This present study has given direction to subsequent re-search by building a corpus of classical Arabic which can be used in investigating lexical problems as com-pared to other language corpuses.

3. It is recommending “Frame Semantics” theory as a good solution to the translation problems. This may en-courage translators and researchers to investigate more about this theory so as to use it in and improve their translations.

4. This study introduces three differences in conception (frame knowledge) between Arabs and native speakers which may give other researchers the opportunity to car-ry on further investigations.

5. Yusuf Ali’s translation was found to occupy the first rank (completely appropriate) among the five translations that were used in this study. This translation has been adopted and reprinted by the Saudi government and this supports and confirms it as participants’ best choice.

6. Pickthall’s translation was assigned to the second po-sition in the rank ordering. This implies that there are some translations by Western translators need to be known and spread.

7. Sale’s translation was assigned the third rank although he had been accused of being anti-Islam. This may indi-cate that negative attitudes do not affect the translators’ performance.

RecommendationsIn the light of the findings’ of this study the researchers would recommend that:

186 ALLS 8(5):172-188

1. Translators should focus on the linguistic background rather than on the cultural knowledge.

2. Tanslators should be aware of the difference in concep-tion between Arabic and English language while trans-lating the Qur’an.

3. The translators should use strategies to avoid problems in the translation process in the Qur’an translation due to the conception difference.

4. The different English frames should not affect the trans-lator’s performance in the translation process.

5. Tanslators should use the theory of frame semantics for a better translation.

6. Yusuf Ali and Pickthall’s translations are good transla-tions and can be propagated all over the world especial-ly in non-Arabic speaking countries.

7. Pickthall’s translation should be made known as a good translation given by an English native speaker.

CONCLUSIONThere are differences in conception (frame knowledge) be-tween Arabs and English native speakers. These differenc-es are oppositeness, generality and complimentary differ-ences. The existence of such differences confirms the first hypothesis. The different English frames are not acute for the native speaker translators. Thus, the second hypothesis is disconfirmed. The use of some strategies by the transla-tors in avoiding problems in the translation process verifies the third hypothesis. The linguistic background contributes more in the translation process than the cultural knowledge and this confirms the fourth and the last hypothesis. The judgment which can be drawn from this conclusion is that, the lexical choices in the translation process of the Qur’an translation affect the translators’ performance and conse-quently the readers’ understanding.

Suggestions for Further StudiesCertain shortcomings of this study are due to that the study has performed on only 2 words. In order to avoid the prob-lems in the English translation of the Qur’an, it is suggested to:a. investigate the linguistic factor/factors which affect the

translation of Holy Qur’an.b. include other words or a complete chapter of the Qur’an.c. compare between the early commentators’ interpreta-

tions and the recent translations of the Qur’an should be carried out.

d. look into the effect of the negative attitudes of the west-ern translators in the translation of the Qur’an.

c. compare between the early commentators’ interpreta-tions and the recent translations of the Qur’an should be carried out.

d. look into the effect of the negative attitudes of the west-ern translators in the translation of the Qur’an.

e. Evaluate the performance of Arabs’ translators which influences the western readers’ understanding.

f. compare the problems that influence the translation of the Qur’an performed by Arabs and Western translators.

g. working as a team, translators can back each other to make appropriate choice of translation.

END NOTES1. Sunna: A group of Muslims who follow of the model of

Prophet Mohammed. 2. Shi’a: A group of Muslims who believe that Ali the

prophet’s son-in-law was designated by Mohammed to be a leader with special wisdom.

3. Sufi: A group of Muslims who follow the inner, mystical dimension of Islam.

(See Woodhead 2002 and Cudsi 1981).

REFERENCESAbdelwali, M. (2007). The loss in the translation of the

Qur’an. 11(2). http://accurapid.com/journals/40quran.htm. Retrieved on 9/10/2008.

Adrienne, L., and Keith, L. (1970). Theory of Learning by Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs.

Albusairi M. (2000). Certain Applications of Linguistics to Translation and Lexicography. Beirut: The Holy Qur’an publishing house.

Ali, A.Y. (1983). The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and commentary. Marland.Amana Corp. Beirut: The Holy Qur’an publishing house.

A. Yusuf, A. (1934). The Holy Qur’an Translation Commen-tary. Beirut: The Holy Qur’an publishing house.

Alston, W. (1943). Philosophy of Language. Englewood cliffs: Prentice-Hall,USA.

Baker, M. (1992). In other words: course book on transla-tion. London and New York: Routledg.

Cramer, D. (1994). Introducing Statistics for Social Re-search. London and New York: Routledge.

Fillmore.C. (1985). Frames and Semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 5 (2), 222-254.

Geeraerts, D. (1992). ‘The Semantic Structure of Dutcho-ver.’ Leuvense bijdragen 81, 205-30.

Geeraerts, D. (2002). The theoretical and descriptive devel-opment of lexical semantics. The lexicon in focus. Com-petition and convergence in current lexicology, 23-42.

Irving, T.B. (1985). The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Com-mentary. Marland-Amana Corp.

Issues in Pragmatics (PLIN 3001).Jeony-Ho, C. (2000). The Implication of Frame Semantics

for Translations, l.2.Pickthall, M. (1969). The Qur’an: The First American Trans-

lation. Bratleboro: Amana Books.Raof, A. (2001). Qur’an Translation Culture and Civiliza-

tion in the Middle East. Routedge, UK.Raof, H. (2001). Qur’an Translation: Discourse, Texture

and Exegesis. Routedge, UK.Sale, G. (---). George Sale Quran Translation. http://www.mlivo.

com/translation/sale%20George.htm retrieved on 3/3/2008.


المراجع العربية Eotvos Lorand التى تصدرها جامعة Arabist البوصيرى، محمد(يونيو 1995) نحو معجم إسالمى للفقهاء,عدد خاص من مجلة المستعرب •

.بإنجلتر Leeds بالمجر وجامعة.موقع وزارة الشؤون السالمية والوقاف والدعوة والرشاد- المملكة العربية السعودية •

http://guran.al-islam.com/arb/Qsearch/hits.asp?1

APPENDIXThis questionnaire will be used only for this research project. In each Qur’anic verse in the questionnaire there is an under-lined word or expression which is accompanied by a number of translations. For EACH of these translations, please indicate how appropriate you feel it is, using the 5 point scale provided. Thus, if you find a translation completely appropriate, tick the box under 1 (completely appropriate); if you find it completely inappropriate, tick the box under 5 (completely inap-propriate); and if it’s somewhere in between, choose between 2, 3, or 4, depending on your judgment.” If you have another alternative for any of these translations, please write it on the line below the table. مغانم كثيرة كذ لك كنتم من)-1 فتبينوا ول تقولوا لمن ألقى إليكم السالم لست مؤمنا تبتغون عرض الحياة الدنيا فعند الل يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا ضربتم في سبيل الل

كان بما تعملون خبيرا). (النساء 94 عليكم فتبينوا إن الل (قبل فمن الل

Meaning 1 Completely appropriate 2 3 4 5 Completely inappropriate1- Who offers you salutation2- Who offereth you peace3- Who saluteth you

ستقيم). (المائدة 16)-2 ن الظلمات إلى النور بإذنه ويهديهم إلى صراط م من اتبع رضوانه سبل السالم ويخرجهم م (يهدي به الل

Meaning 1 Completely appropriate 2 3 4 5 Completely inappropriate1- Ways of peace and safety2- Paths of peace3- Ways of safety

(لهم دار السالم عند ربهم وهو وليهم بما كانوا يعملون). (األنعام 127) -3

Meaning 1 Completely appropriate 2 3 4 5 Completely inappropriate1- Home of peace2- Abode of peace3- Dwelling of peace

ا يشركون). (الحشر 23) -4 عم ه إل هو الملك القدوس السالم المؤمن المهيمن العزيز الجبار المتكبر سبحان الل ـ الذي ل إل (هو الل

Meaning 1 Completely appropriate 2 3 4 5 Completely inappropriate1- The source of peace and perfection2- Peace3- The Giver of peace4- The peace

وإن طلقتموهن من قبل أن تمسوهن وقد فرضتم لهن فريضة فنصف ما فرضتم إل أن يعفون أو يعفو الذي بيده عقدة النكاح وأن تعفوا أقرب للتقوى ول تنسوا) -5 بما تعملون بصير). (البقرة237 (الفضل بينكم إن الل

Meaning 1 Completely appropriate 2 3 4 5 Completely inappropriate1- Liberality2- Kindness3- Giving of free gift4- Generosity

188 ALLS 8(5):172-188

واسع عليم).) -6 يؤتيه من يشاء والل وكم عند ربكم قل إن الفضل بيد الل ثل ما أوتيتم أو يحاج أن يؤتى أحد م ول تؤمنوا إل لمن تبع دينكم قل إن الهدى هدى الل((آل عمران 73

Meaning 1 Completely appropriate 2 3 4 5 Completely inappropriate1- All bounties2- The bounty3-Grace4- Excellence

حيم).)-7 غفور ر لكم والل وليعفوا وليصفحوا أل تحبون أن يغفر الل ول يأتل أولو الفضل منكم والسعة أن يؤتوا أولي القربى والمساكين والمهاجرين في سبيل الل((النور22

Meaning 1 Completely appropriate 2 3 4 5 Completely inappropriate1- Who possess grace and amplitude of means2- Who possess dignity and ease3- Who possess grace and abundance4- Who possess bounty and plenty swear5- Who possess abundance of wealth

ذو الفضل العظيم). (الحديد 29) -8 يؤتيه من يشاء والل وأن الفضل بيد الل ن فضل الل (لئال يعلم أهل الكتاب أل يقدرون على شيء م

Meaning 1 Completely appropriate 2 3 4 5 Completely inappropriate1- Grace abounding2- Infinite bounty3- Mighty grace4- Great favor5- Great beneficence

Author Query???AQ1: Kindly cite tables 4.5 C, 4.10 in the text part

advances in language and literary studiescomplications of translating the meanings of the holy...

Documents